Before engaging in a time-consuming analysis of Vernon's claims, I'd like
to know why the numerical analysis of Genesis is relevant, and the
analysis of the Koran can be sloughed off? Ed has noted an extensive
analysis of the latter.
Dave
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:02:12 +0100 "David Bradford"
<david.bradford1@which.net> writes in part:
On ED's final point about 'hits' and 'misses', I would like to ask where
the contributors to this site would elect to set the threshold between an
acceptable coincidence and an unacceptable coincidence. As Bacon
suggested, people are often fooled because they like the look of the hits
and ignore the misses. So what should we think if there are no misses?
Even then one hit out of one would still not be very convincing. 5/5
might start to raise eyebrows. And 20/20 hits would surely exceed any
reasonable threshold. Vernon Jenkins' findings I suggest belong to the
third category and constitute strong, perhaps overwhelming evidence for
deliberate design in the early part of Genesis.
I would certainly value seeing a well thought-out, formal critique that
addresses VJ's findings as a package, an assessment worthy of
consideration by the scientific community.
I have seen in a different thread that Vernon has, at least temporarily,
taken a step back from insisting on drawing certain unpopular conclusions
from his results. This should give everyone enough space to assess the
'facts' without prejudice to any particular doctrinal position. So, come
on, let's see what collective ASA grey matter is capable of!
Regards
David
_________________
David S. Bradford
Received on Wed Oct 6 20:09:11 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 06 2004 - 20:09:11 EDT